Hasina not produced before court

Trackback URL

Download PDF

The special court dealing with the Tk 3 crore graft case against Sheikh Hasina and other accused yesterday deferred again the hearing on framing charge until February 19 as Hasina was not produced before the court because of illness.

Hasina’s counsel filed a petition yesterday, seeking bail. The prosecution and the defence completed their arguments on the petition and the court decided to deliver its order on the next day of hearing.

Firoz Alam, judge of the special court-1 set up in the MP Hostel on the National Parliament Complex, adjourned the proceedings until 2:30pm of February 19.

The court sat at 10:30am after the jail authority informed the court that the physical condition of the former primer minister and Awami League president was not good and her blood pressure was fluctuating, so she cannot attend the court.

Former power and energy secretary Dr Toufiq-e-Elahi Chowdhury, another detained accused of the case, was produced before the court yesterday.

Toufiq had obtained bail from the High Court (HC) and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court also upheld the order on Tuesday.

The prosecution alleged that Hasina awarded the contract of setting up a barge-mounted power plant to Khulna Power Company Ltd (KPCL), a conglomerate comprising Wartsila, Sunnit Group and United Group, in exchange for a bribe of Tk 3 crore paid in eight pay orders.

They said the New England Power Company was the lowest bidder with a quotation of a rate of $4.59 for one kilowatt per hour while the rates offered by Wartsila and Summit were $5.82 and $6.17.

The prosecution said Hasina approved the project summary on October 11, 1997 after owners of Summit Group and United Group paid the eight pay-orders to Natasha Ahmed and Nasrin Ahmed, daughters of Badrunnesa Nahid, as the price of their house adjacent to the house of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

The house was donated to the Bangabandhu Memorial Trust for the Bangabandhu Memorial Museum.

Defence counsel barrister Shafique Ahmed informed the court about the recent HC judgment that quashed the extortion case against Hasina filed by businessman Azam J Chowdhury. The court also declared the government approval to bring the case under Emergency Power Rules (EPR) illegal, he said.

“This particular [Tk 3 crore graft] case stands in the same place,” Shafique argued.

He said the date of occurrence of the incident mentioned in the case is 1997 whereas the state of emergency was declared on January 11 last year and the Emergency Power Ordinance was promulgated on January 12.

“The law does not permit bringing of an offence committed before the declaration of the state of emergency under the EPR, so why should Hasina be in jail?” Shafique said, adding that Hasina is also seriously ill.

He also argued that the money was given to the Bangabandhu Memorial Trust as the price of a piece of land donated to it for the Bangabandhu Memorial Museum.

Reading out an article from a Bangla newspaper and a report from an English daily, barrister Shafique said the power plant project was given to the lowest bidder and the donation was given to the trust.

The graft case against Hasina cannot be maintained, he argued, urging the court to grant her bail.

Chief prosecution lawyer ABM Sharfuddin Khan Mukul argued that there is yet no copy of the HC judgment that declared inclusion of the EPR in Azam Chowdhury’s case illegal and quashed it.

He said the facts of a case never die. Even if a section of a case is declared illegal, the case itself never dies.

Referring to the defence’s argument that the money was paid as a donation, Mukul said Hasina illegally favoured to the Summit Group.

The investigation clearly shows that the Summit Group paid eight pay-orders not to the trust but to two women as per Hasina’s desire, Mukul said, adding that the record of the trust is being examined.

Mukul also told the court that Natasha and Nasrin have given confessional statements under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) saying they received the pay-orders in their names from the then prime minister Sheikh Hasina.

He argued that this kind of donation is illegal.

He opposed the bail petition, saying another bail petition for Hasina in connection with this graft case is already pending with the HC, so another petition is not maintainable.

Barrister Shafique, however, countered that there is no bail petition in the HC in connection with this case.

He said they had filed a writ petition with the HC challenging the inclusion of the EPR in this case and seeking bail.

According to section 498 of the CrPC, there is no bar to entertaining this petition even though there is a bail prayer in that writ petition, the defence argued.

Advocates Syed Rezaur Rahman and Yusuf Hossain Humayun of the defence also made submissions while Public Prosecutor Advocate Syed Shameem Ahsan Habib assisted Mukul.

Leave a Reply